Author: Derrick Kimball

Categories
Politics

The Activist Senate

The intervention of the Canadian Senate in the passage of Bill C- 14 highlights a serious and emerging problem. More than that it highlights the careless inexperience of our new Prime Minister.

Bill C- 14 is the Assisted Dying Legislation mandated by the Supreme Court of Canada decision that found or identifies that the ‘right to die’ is a protected right of the citizen under the Charter of Rights and if government wants to provide limitations or guidelines for those who would be involved in the decisions and execution of such decisions, that they need to do so in a timely fashion.

The House of Commons recently passed a version of the bill which was passed on to the Senate for passage as required in our constitutional bicameral arrangement.

But the Senate to whom the Bill was sent is not the Senate of yesteryears. Then, the Senate collectively and Senators individually understood they were not elected and had no mandate to interfere with the decision of the elected Commons. They were a ‘sober second chamber’ populated for the most part by sober, senior members of the political parties who appointed them, understanding their duties to approve the legislation sent to them for approval by the Commons.

Today it appears we have an interventionist Senate, an activist Senate, a Senate that is populated by many Senators who feel they are ‘independent’ of….. well anyone.  Indeed, the former Liberal Senators are independent since their Leader (before he became PM) unceremoniously kicked them out of the Liberal caucus two years ago and declared that henceforth they would be Independents. At the time, he said he wanted the Senate to be nonpartisan. However, his real motivation for doing so seemed clear. He wanted to avoid the Liberal brand having any responsibility for the fallout from the Senate expense claims scandal that was erupting to the embarrassment and shame of many Senators and those responsible for putting them there. Senators receive their appointment to the upper chamber by the sitting Prime Minister of the day – roughly accounting for significant numbers of both Conservative and Liberal Senators in the Chamber at any given time. Most of those individuals had prior political involvement or otherwise enjoyed some degree of political experience and appreciation for the role of an appointed and unelected legislative body.

This then was Mr. Trudeau’s answer to a political problem that he was facing or thought he would have to face and didn’t want to face all dressed up as progressive change.

At the time a few of us predicted what would unfold. Based on his lack of understanding of the constitutional dynamic governing the nation – upon being cut loose and made ‘independent’ some of these capable Senators would indeed decide to think and act independently of the Commons and any direction from their former Leader.

In his grand emancipation, it was reported that he had not consulted with his caucus or his party in making the decision. It is clear Justin Trudeau had not consulted with his Liberal Senators – the decision came as a shock to them. Indeed at least one Senator, in reaction, commented that he was a Liberal and Mr. Trudeau had no right to say otherwise.

At the time, some few of us wondered about his apparent lack of understanding of the constitution and the constitutional arrangement that over time had ensured that the Senate’s role was both muted and compliant of the wishes of the elected House and the government of the day.

Many Canadians are unhappy with the Senate. Most would agree it is a seriously flawed institution – an unelected, unaccountable chamber of politicians who are appointed to serve without term limits or recall to age 75. The purpose of the Senate historically was to provide regional representation and balance for the elected Commons, but those origins were rooted in a nascent democracy when most ‘commoners’ were not trusted with the franchise (women for example). Times have changed. It is time we acted like a grown uo democracy.

Many would like the Senate abolished or otherwise reformed. Unfortunately it is enshrined in the constitution and any change to its role or even existence would require a constitutional amendment. And it is not surprising that our ten provinces and federal government cannot agree on what a reformed (perhaps elected) Senate would look like or do.

But the situation that endured over the years, not without the occasional bump, made for a de facto working arrangement that was not too offensive to even those who seek change. This was precisely because that Senate was not activist, interventionist or Independent. Senators understood that notwithstanding their ‘constitutional ‘ entrenchment, they were not a democratically mandated institution and their talents best lay in giving a sober second look to legislation and encourage useful amendments to the government of the day.

The issue is not whether the Senate is right in any given instance. It is whether this country – a democracy – will be governed by an unelected legislature. The Commons may be wrong, but they have a mandate to be wrong and can be held accountable at the next election.

It won’t end with Bill C-14. An independent Senate indeed will be an undemocratic institution and will likely lead at some point to constitutional crisis. Our inexperienced and impulsive Prime Minister opened a Pandora’s box. Thank you Mr. Trudeau.

Categories
Law

Reasonable Doubt

There is a golden thread that underlies our criminal justice system. Articulated in the famous English case of Woolmington v. DPP by Lord Sankey, speaking for the House of Lords on an appeal from a conviction for murder, uttered the now famous words; “Throughout the web of the English criminal law one golden thread is always to be seen that it is the duty of the prosecution to prove the prisoners guilt…if at the end and on the whole of the case, there is a reasonable doubt, …the prisoner is entitled to an acquittal. No matter what the charge or where the trial….”

Recent news associated with the Gomeshi sexual assault trial raises questions whether the general public really understand our criminal justice system. The old and well known adage: “Better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer” finds its ancient origins in Genesis. The golden thread of the presumption of innocence is the unwavering principle that guides every criminal prosecution. The accused is presumed innocent unless his guilt is proved beyond a reasonable doubt. in all cases, the accused is entitled to the presumption of innocence. This presumption he carries into and throughout the trial until the verdict is rendered and he is found to be guilty or not guilty.

Some news articles, public reactions and editorial cartoons seems to suggest an antediluvian justice system at work that puts ‘victims’ on trial. How unfair that they are subject to rigorous, intrusive and embarrassing cross examination – so goes the narrative. Such a point of view implicitly presumes the guilt of the accused and portrays the witness as being twice victimized. Such views seem to be peculiar to cases of sexual assault. Yet there are many victims of crime and the criminal justice system operates in the same fashion in all cases. To be clear, if someone is to accuse YOU of a crime, then you will expect that person must take the witness stand and face you and provide the evidence to the court. What would you think, how would your feel, accused of a crime you did not commit and the accusation never tested, the accuser never questioned? It would be a Kafkaesque world. The days are long since gone, in our democracies governed by the rule of law, when the mere allegation of a crime is deemed sufficient to exact punishment. We no longer suffer the perfidy of the Star Chamber when you could be convicted in abstentia, without the right to face your accuser or the court.

Unfortunately, our efforts to be fair to an accused within the system do nothing to protect the person before trial, while still presumed innocent. Today, social media and mainstream media can irrevocably eviscerate a  life in a matter of hours.

Whatever may be thought of Mr. Gomeshi as a human being, he is entitled to the presumption of innocence for the crimes he is accused of. He was not on trial for misbehaviour or even leading a secret life of sorts. He was on trial for very specific matters alleged by very specific individuals.

There is another point worth noting. Two of the three complainants who gave evidence at the trial were afforded anonymity. There was a court ordered publication ban on their identities. Mr. Gomeshi was publicly accused of these unproven crimes many months in advance of trial. He is publicly humiliated and his reputation is trashed. It matters not what the outcome of the trial will be – even if found not guilty, his reputation is irreparably damaged. But what of the complainants – not just in this case but in any case. They may not enjoy their courtroom experience, but in effect they can come forward and make false accusations of sexual assault. The accused faces the loss of reputation, employment, social stigmatization and risks the loss of his freedom – the complainant faces no risk whatsoever. Shouldn’t the public be entitled to know the identity of the complainant as well as the identity of an accused? Such a double standard does not enhance the notion of presumption of innocence.

Categories
Politics

The Holiday

The MacNeil government has gifted a new holiday to all Nova Scotians. The third Monday of February will henceforth and forever be a provincial holiday for Bluenosers. Although originally thought of as a ‘family’day, it is officially designated as Heritage Day with each year a different Nova Scotian of note being the honouree of the day.

There will of course be some kind of competition for the honour of the day name but ultimately the name of the day will be of import to those involved in that process and not to most others. But we didn’t need a holiday to honour the hundreds of former citizens who will be in competition for the position. We could have simply named the day and not make it a holiday.

Our government deserves a big thank you from a grateful citizenry.  Holidays are wonderful – you don’t have to work or if you do you get paid extra. But of course, there aren’t nearly enough of them.  So it makes you wonder. Why don’t we have more of these holidays. And why did it take so long to get this ‘family day’ in place to break up the long winter months? We have been talking about it for at least the last twenty five years.

Well, there is a reason why we don’t have a holiday every week and why it seemed to take forever to obtain this new addition to the lists. Its called the economy. Every holiday affects productivity or the cost of productivity. And as it turns out, when government gives us a holiday, they didn’t actually give us anything. We citizens pay for the holiday. We pay directly because we close our businesses and have to pay to make up the loss of productivity later, or if the business has to stay open then employees are paid extra for working a holiday. This all has an impact on employment and income.

But we also pay increased taxes or more indirectly suffer the knowledge of assuming the greater debt burden accumulated by the province. For public servants – teachers, civil servants, health care workers –  it is paid holiday. Vital work is not being done that day. Schools are closed, government offices are closed. For those services remaining available for citizens, the employees who must work are paid double overtime.

We citizens pay for the lost productivity and the extra wage costs . And there is a cost to lost productivity – we either make it up with additional work performed at some other time – overtime perhaps – or we pay for it on the lost service. Interestingly, one wonders whether the school year will be extended by an additional day. Given the well known correlation between the length of the school year and performance on international testing and the recent tests results of students in this province, it is surely on governments agenda to ensure our students futures do not suffer as a result of this.

What is truly remarkable is that for the past several years a great many words have been uttered and profusion of ink spilled in the collective anxiety ensuing from the publication of the Now or Never Report on the Nova Scotia economy. We are, it is reported, in dire straits. Our demographics, our public debt and our economy are all moving in the wrong direction and the clock is ticking on a kind of doomsday scenario – at least for anyone who wants to live in Nova Scotia twenty years from now. The MacNeil government adopted this report and have been working assiduously to develop a plan to implement a cure for these collective ills.

So how exactly does this new holiday fit with this planning? How will this new time off improve our demograhics, eliminate the public debt, make our civil service more efficient, improve health care, advance student education and test scores, assist small and big business and generally strengthen our economy?

Categories
Law

Judicial Ideology

The recent discussions regarding the nature and process of judicial appointments in Canada is both timely and vitally important. In a democracy such as ours, the appointment qualifications of the third branch of government is of critical importance.

In our tripartite system of government – the executive , the legislative and the judicial – it is only the latter branch that does not face the scrutiny of the people through the electoral process.

Judges are not elected under our constitution. They are appointed by the government of the day. This is a constitutional mandate.It can not be properly delegated to anyone else. Nor should it. We should all know who to blame (or praise) for such important appointments – our elected politicians. That is where the political accountability lies.

But judges are appointed for life (age 75), there is no effective recall, they are largely unaccountable and their decisions can have a significant impact on society – even at the trial level.

In a country governed by the rule of law, it is not for judges to make law or even interpret law. It is for judges to apply the law that is given to them objectively and independently on a case by case basis. In that fashion all like cases will be treated the same.

But clearly there is something wrong. No one seems to know what the law is. A judge hears a case. It is appealed to a panel of judges (a court of appeal) who disagree with first judge (and may do so in a split decision). It is further appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada. They disagree with the appeal court (and also disagree among themselves in another split decision) but in doing so find there are different reasons for deciding from any of the judges below.

So what is the average citizen to do when the lawyers and judges – wise and experienced in the law – cannot agree.

When a judge errs, that injustice is usually isolated to the parties before the court, an accepted (if not acceptable) margin of error. However, when the case gets decided on social facts – facts not peculiar to the particular parties – then the injustice of that particular judicial error becomes the law of the land. It is no longer democracy at work. It is fiat by judge.

The unfortunate history of judicial appointments across the country has been that the quality of the appointee was completely dependent on the level of attention and motivation afforded the process by the politicians charged with that responsibility. Party politics and a form of crony nepotism has always been an aspect of political appointments and this includes appointments to the bench. A close examination of the 600 federal appointments would no doubt demonstrate this fact of life. But since the constitution mandates it, there is nothing to prevent this practice.

Personal and political relationships, which have always largely been the basis for appointment, is not as bad as it sounds. Some of our political appointees have turned out to be outstanding judges. Ultimately, conscientious politicians want to appoint respected and qualified individuals.

But it is not this aspect of the process which seems to have garnered the recent attention. Rather it is the ‘ideological ‘ aspect of recent appointments that is of concern to some. This aspect of the process needs to be understood and appreciated.

If one is to appoint a judge, you can decide to pay no attention to ideology and appoint judges based purely on experience and personal qualities. But every judge brings to the bench preconceived attitudes regarding the role of the judge. Is that person a ‘liberal’ or a ‘conservative’, an originalist or a subscriber to the living tree theory? Will this new judge want to change the law to suit these preconceived beliefs or objectively apply the law that is given? Can they?

Mr. Harper and many others not of Conservative persuasion have a right to be concerned that some judges on some courts are not deferring to the democratically elected legislative bodies and are assuming powers that they were never meant to have. Good laws and bad laws alike are to be applied – not reinterpreted to accommodate the subjective views of an appointed judge. Incomprehensible legislation does need to be rationalized in rare circumstances. Occasionally the supreme law of the land needs to be applied to sort out competing rights.

But Mr. Harper and all parliamentarians should ensure that judicial appointees have the ideological qualities necessary to fulfill their responsibilities. This should include deference to parliament and the legislatures. The living tree philosophy is not a basis for establishing a judicial super government who rule by decree. Judges everywhere need to be reminded that the highest court in the land is Parliament.

Categories
Politics

Balancing The Budget

Election 2015 is shaping up, at least on fiscal policy, as a choice between pro-deficit and anti-deficit. Justin Trudeau says the government he wants to form will run three consecutive deficits. Mr, Harper and Mr. Mulcair say they will balance their budgets and in articulating what they will do are very clear that deficit budgets are contrary to the needs of this economy and the interests of Canadians. Mr. Trudeau contends that deficit spending, particularly on public works/infrastructure projects is necessary to stimulate a slow growth economy.

It is noteworthy that the other two leaders are committed to extensive infrastructure spending as a well, perhaps not as extensive, but with billion dollar price tags nonetheless. Indeed, Mr. Harper can claim to have already invested billions in public works in the course of his tenure.

The issue then is not whether we spend money on these public works projects – everyone agrees there is need for renewal just to maintain what we have and for new investment, particularly in the area of transportation. This is not a matter of stimulating the economy, but a matter of necessary spending. And it is axiomatic. If you spend money on capital infrastructure, you will provide some stimulus for the economy – with jobs creation and materials acqusition. That is not really the issue.

The issue is, what is the correct level of government spending – not on public works – but on everything. What no one is talking about but we need to talk about is the effect of spending beyond our means.

In the context of the nation what does it mean when we aren’t able to balance our budgets. It means we accumulate debt. And just because it is government debt does not mean there aren’t consequences for the average citizen. The consequence?

Simply stated and cutting through mind numbing numbers and statistics, the answer is easy to grasp. The effect of many years of deficit spending, always for essential public purposes, always to achieve national priorities, has resulted in the current federal public debt of over $616 billion and counting. This is $17, 242.00 for every man woman and child living in Canada. Servicing that debt – interest costs- consumed 10% of the federal budget in the 2013 -2014 fiscal year. This is some $28.2 billion for that year.

Servicing the debt – the interest we pay on our debt – is money obtained from citizens every year in the form of taxes – the same taxes that are needed to fund programs (including infrastructure projects). In Canada, the public debt today (the federal government and provinces combined) is over $1.2 trillion. It is an astonishing number. And it continues to grow because too many politicians find it easier to borrow and spend than to say no.

They don’t seem to appreciate that saying no to this generation means saying yes to the next. And they don’t seem to appreciate what we could be doing with those billions of tax dollars today if we hadn’t spent it yesterday.

Unfortunately, promises made in the euphoria of the campaign are often not honoured in the aftermath. And campaign mathematics is always a little fuzzy.

The trouble with announcing you intend to engage in deficit spending is that you will and likely in a much bigger way than you intended. When it comes to fiscal policy, there are always more demands for spending than sources of revenue. At least when you promise to balance a budget, the reality might more closely resemble the promise.

Balancing the cheque book is an end in itself. And avoiding deficits should be a national priority.

September 20, 2015

Categories
Law

Selecting Our Judges

A recent CBC article reported on recent appointments to Nova Scotia’s Supreme Court by federal Justice Minister Peter MacKay. The article reported that six of the last nine appointments were individuals who were close friends or political supporters of Mr. MacKay or members and supporters of the Conservative party.

It should be clear at the outset that all of our judges are appointed by our politicians. They apply for the job and then it is within the power of the government of the day to make the appointment. That is what the constitution allows.

Our judges are appointed for life. Supreme court judges can retire at age 65 on a full pension after 10 years of service or may continue to work part time up to age 75. We pay them very well and accord them high status in our communities. Judges enjoy unprecedented job security. For all intents and purposes they can‘t be dismissed for laziness or incompetence or negligence or dereliction of duties. The Canadian Judicial Council, a body of senior judges, can hear complaints of misconduct, but they have no real power to discipline a judge and the inquiry process is not public.

Federally appointed judges can only be dismissed by parliament and only for extreme misconduct. This has never happened.

This is for a good reason. We don’t want judges easily removed at the whim of politicians or in the aftermath of a brave but unpopular decision on, for example, a constitutional issue. We want our judges to be free of undue influence and independent to conscientiously go about their duties. On the other hand, it means that it is virtually impossible to remove judges who are just unsuited to fulfill their responsibilities by reason of incompetence, character or shoddy work habits.

Judges are a very important part of our justice system. Collectively, they form one of our three branches of government. At the highest level, the Supreme Court of Canada has the final say on constitutional questions and interpretation. The recent striking down of the law on euthanasia is a good example.

Judges are appointed by the government of the day. To become a judge you must apply to the government as you would for any other job. The selection process however is a little different.

We don’t elect judges as is common at the state level in the United States. We don’t appoint and promote judges based on their training, experience and credentials or their track records as junior judges as occurs in Europe. Here in Canada, judges at all levels – provincial, superior (supreme court) and federal judges are all appointed by the government of the day. Nova Scotia supreme court judges are appointed by the federal Minister of Justice. They are appointed at his discretion from the ranks of lawyers practicing in the province who apply for the job and after being vetted by a committee who advise whether the applicant is recommended or not recommended. The process is entirely private and confidential.

Confidence in our justice system is essential to the happiness of our democracy. Confidence in our judges is central to that notion. Lack of confidence in individual judges is not new and will continue. However, as a group, the public must believe that our judges embody those qualities essential to the fulfillment of their public duties.

An ideal judge, it has been said, would be independent, honest, fair, patient and intelligent. Experience of and understanding of the law and our legal system is indispensable. The ability to listen and to be polite and respectful of citizens who appear in court is essential. Judges should understand that they are servants of the public and of the law.

In reality, our judges are all human and make mistakes. Appeal courts exist to review and remedy at least the most egregious of such mistakes. Unfortunately, justice is dispensed on a daily basis in many courts and most mistakes cannot be practically corrected.

So, what we need in our judges is the character and the will to strive every day for that unattainable perfection.

In reality, we have experienced some poor appointments – judges who are not suited to the position by reason of character or experience. Some may display arrogance, impatience, deep seated biases that intrude (consciously or unconsciously) into the deliberative process or just lack proper knowledge and experience. At the other end of the extreme, we are blessed with judges who are remarkable models of the ideal to be strived for.

As for the public, we need the best possible judges. The citizen who appears in any of our courtrooms should feel they are before an impartial and independent tribunal who will listen and render a fair, respectful and timely decision. The public must have confidence in a process that will result in the appointment of the best possible judges.

As for Mr. MacKay, he needs to appreciate that he exercises a public trust. His power of appointment is not a private piggy bank from which he can dispense gifts to his friends and supporters. Appearances are important. The public and our democracy expects that in the appointment of our judicial officers every effort will be made to ensure the very best applicant will succeed so that the judges will be handmaidens of justice in the noblest sense of that term. If the citizens lose confidence in the quality of appointment then they will demand a new process of appointment. We may have to look to the experience of other jurisdictions where judges are elected and are accountable to the people they serve, or where judging is it’s own unique profession and much like a civil service job, applicants are hired at entry level judicial positions and then promoted based on their experience and conduct in lower courts. An obvious option is to make the current process an open and public process.

As for our new judges, we should wish them well as they embark on their final lifetime careers. We want them to do well. We need them to do well. And it should be said, that merely because the optics or process of appointment may be criticized, who is to say that each and every one of them may not embody the very ideal of judgeship that we all seek. We certainly want them to strive for that ideal.

Categories
Law

Limits of Judicial Power

The recent decision by Justice Greg Warner of the Nova Scotia Supreme Court raises questions regarding the limits of judicial power.

An application recently brought before the court alleged that the Warden of the Municipality of West Hants had violated the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act. The Applicant elector sought a ruling that there was a violation of the Act and also sought the removal of the Warden from his elected office. The court determined that there had been no violation of the statute. However, Justice Warner then engages in a commentary, not relevant to the decision of the court, regarding the actions of the Warden and the municipal council regarding the purchase of a parcel of land.

The judge is highly critical of both the Respondent and the council, stating they acted “improperly” and that their conduct was “inappropriate” by reason of “haste, secrecy, lack of due diligence and apparent excessive price paid”. However, the matter before the court was whether the Warden was in a conflict of interest by reason of his participation in a decision of the council.  The actions of the council and the municipality, the decisions they made and the manner in which they carried on their business were never justiciable issues before the court.

In our system of government, we grant judges extensive power. But their power is limited to the questions we bring before the court. Neither the municipality nor its council or members were parties to the court application and they were not represented.

Here, the judge offers opinions on matters that were not before him to decide. The judge’s opinions in this regard are gratuitous and have no bearing on the ultimate decision. Moreover, the opinions are based on matters on which there was little or no evidence before the court precisely because these were not matters in issue that required the parties to provide evidence. For example, there were differing opinions as to the value of the land but experts were not called to give evidence or to be cross examined  because the value of the land was not relevant.

The court room is not a bully pulpit for a judge to comment on social or political issues of the day. Things said by the judge as obiter (by the way) comments are not strictly part of a court decision and great care must be (and usually is) taken by our judges not to comment on matters unnecessary for the determination of the issue before the court. In some cases, such comments may suggest that the ruling of the court extends beyond the factual context of the case before the court and therefor mislead as the principle of the case may be taken out of context. In other cases, such as here, such comments may be very damaging  to the reputation or character of a person.  Such comments are problematic in circumstances where such are unnecessary to the determination of the question before the court and where there may be insufficient evidence before the court upon which to base such statements.  Such statements have grave implications where the judge enjoys immunity for any civil action for such statements made ‘from the bench’. And because they are delivered by a judge in the course of his judicial duties and because the judge cannot be called to task for those comments, the public may not appreciate the distinction between the court decision and these obiter comments.

This case also highlights another area of concern with obiter comments by a judge. Our legal system, based on the Rule of Law, provides for a strict separation of powers as between elected representatives and the judiciary. Great care is taken to ensure that the limits of those powers are carefully observed. It is for example improper for a politician to call a judge regarding a matter before the court . Likewise it is improper for a judge to criticize the actions of an elected government. It is certainly not a judge’s role to criticize a policy decision of an elected government or ascribe unsubstantiated motives to the decision of an elected Council, particularly a unanimous decision. If an elected body – Parliament, the Legislature or Municipal council makes a decision, it is for the electors to pass judgment, not the judiciary. These decisions are part of the political process and it is well accepted that judges are most definitely not to be involved in politics.

Categories
Politics

No More Half Measures – Nova Scotia tax and spending reforms

Nova Scotia is in economic and demographic decline.

At the root of the problem are the public finances. Our taxes are too high. We can’t control our spending. Our present level of public services is unsustainable. Our provincial governments have been running serial deficits and have grown the public debt to a projected $15 billion. Interest on that debt approaches $1 billion annually.

It did not happen overnight. Nova Scotia has been a have-not province for decades, the recipient of grants from the federal treasury that now is almost $3 billion annually. This pays for what we cannot pay for ourselves — health care, education, social services.

We can rake over the history and there are lessons. The reality is that in a competitive world, Nova Scotia is not an attractive place to do business or to find a job.

We are overtaxed and over-regulated. Our political parties have failed us. They have contributed little in the way of public policy and regularly deliver mediocre candidates for public office.

Governments have failed us. There have been too many inept or timid MLAs and cabinet ministers. Some lacked ability, some the courage of their convictions. The “vision thing” has been lacking for a long time, but successive governments have not even been good stewards of the public purse.

The reason we are in this fix is failure of leadership. The answer to these problems is also leadership.

A notion of a unity government has been floated as if this will provide the answer. It is exactly the wrong approach. Such an approach entrenches mediocrity and reduces transparency.

We have a long-established system of democracy that is messy, but it works. We need a strong government with a positive articulated agenda. We need a strong opposition that will challenge government in a proactive and constructive fashion. This will be no bandwagon. There will be difficult decisions to take. It will hurt. Many people will be unhappy and upset. There will be more marches on Province House.

What must government do now?

We must reduce personal and business income taxes in Nova Scotia as well as sales taxes to well below the national average. This is essential in order to become competitive. Reducing taxes also creates jobs. If our youth cannot stay, then neither will immigrants come.

To reduce taxes, we must reduce spending. When spending is reduced, deficits are eliminated. When deficits are eliminated and public debt is managed, taxation can be reduced. Then government has the flexibility to act. The province can invest in targeted and essential infrastructure, research and development.

The provincial government needs to ensure that municipal taxation is restrained.

This will mean the encouragement of municipal amalgamation and the discouragement of municipal government extending its reach into areas that do not involve the delivery of essential municipal services. This requires oversight and legislation.

In order to gain control of spending, the provincial government needs to address in a comprehensive fashion the cost of public sector employees. Temporary restraint measures, such as wage or hiring freezes are only a stopgap measure.

The size of the public sector needs to be rationalized. Public-sector wage increases need to be constrained, not only within the limit of inflation but also within the limits of economic growth.

Ultimately, public-sector compensation should be tied to private-sector compensation. There is no logical reason for the taxpayers, as employer, to pay compensation to public sector employees beyond what the private sector taxpayer earns.

Public sector pensions require urgent address. In 2011, the provincial budget took a charge of $536 million to fund the underfunded public sector pension plan. This charge was largely responsible for the huge deficit of that year. This and previous similar periodic bailouts (costing hundreds of millions of dollars) to the public service and teacher pension plans are major contributors to our looming $15-billion accumulated debt.

The way government has permitted these plans to be funded has been grossly unfair to the general taxpayer. These unsustainable public sector defined benefit pensions must be abolished and replaced with accountable, self-funded, defined contribution plans which are common in the private sector.

We do not need to wait or consult for 10 years. These tax and spending reforms are really “Now or Never.”